3 ms·
The claim of blocking ads because of malware is likely just a case of people picking the low-hanging fruit to get on with their busy day. If a user actually we
by jancsika 10y ago
The claim of blocking ads because of malware is likely just a case of people picking the low-hanging fruit to get on with their busy day. If a user actually went to the trouble of searching out and installing an ad-blocker, you can bet there are a plethora of higher-level pains that add-on relieves for them. Properly addressing the malware risk might force them to articulate those higher level reasons (ads eat batteries, delay streaming content, bark sounds, block content, intrude on content, aren't content) but is near 0% likely to convince them to uninstall the blocker.
- SAI_Peregrinus 10y agoIf ads weren't the primary source of malware I'd at least be willing/able to turn the ad blocker off on sites I like and want to support that have non-intrusive ads.
- jancsika 10y agoOk. So you keep the blocker on, but you allow ads on the subset of sites that fit the following criteria: 1. You like and trust the site 2. You want to support the site 3. You trust that the ads displayed on the site are non-intrusive (and if they cease to be that you start blocking ads again) Does anyone know if such a model would generate enough revenue for the web as it exists today to stay in business? Because even if ads become less risky and less intrusive, there's no going back to allowing arbitrary ads from arbitrary sites. Your model seems about as promiscious as a responsible user could be going forward.